Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 199 posts

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#171

Post by cmdrfred »

smt88 wrote: post #129
intopieces wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow why the system has to be so complex. Why not just block access to Instagram entirely? China does, and they seem to be satisfied with the results. I don't forsee prison inmates getting access to VPNs. As other users have proposed, a locked-down version (not 'unfettered') of the web seems like a reasonable compromise.

You can't prevent access to any social network that has an API, which Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter have. The connection the social network happens on the server side, where the filter can't get it. Further, you can't prevent access to email for the same reason.

Why not doesn't the API have a hostname? Can't you just point the DNS at 127.0.0.1?

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#172

Post by task_queue »

Avshalom wrote: post #28
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…

>>I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. >>Look, I get it, you support private industry. So in the 60's the Republicans launched a thing called The Southern Strategy that was literally the Republican Party courting white racists. They never stopped. Now that openly calling for segregation is frowned upon making the criminal justice system as punitive as possible is one of the ways they keep that strate…

There's a great quote by Lee Atwater about The Southern Strategy and how they knowingly use dog-whistle politics when their policy and rhetoric starts getting dated/transparent.

http://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infa...

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#173

Post by task_queue »

grecy wrote: post #122
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…

> I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. It's very simple, they support businesses making a ton of money. They don't care about competition, they don't care about regulation, they don't care about fair. They care about businesses making a boat load of money. End of story.

Nothing gets them off more than profiting off of a minority in shackles.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#175

Post by mgkimsal »

Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…

> you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists

Do you think these monopolies just randomly happen? There's a lot of competition to be the monopolist.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#176

Post by martinpw »

ctdonath wrote: post #102
smt88 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably time to give up on the ridiculous sanctity of states' rights. It made sense in a time when people lived in same state their whole lives, rarely traveled outside the state, and rarely communicated outside the state. Their whole lives unfolded within a few hundred square miles. That's not the case anymore. You can't subdivide the interests of American citizens by state anymore. What does it mean to be fro…

Still means a lot. Cherry-picking a pair that differs little ignores the vast differences between other pairs. I moved from NY to GA; there's a deep cultural difference, and much that's desirable norm in one is nigh unto intolerable in the other (both ways). Wyoming is a very different lifestyle from California from Florida from Virginia from Maine etc. Drives many of us crazy that concentrated urbanites in one regio…

> Drives many of us crazy that concentrated urbanites in one region want to boss around country folk living very different lifestyles/values/history, and do so due to sheer concentrated numbers

Strange that you pick that example since that happens within a single state too. In fact it seems like there is a much larger difference between urban and rural regions within any given state then there is between urban regions (or rural regions) across different states.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#177

Post by intopieces »

smt88 wrote: post #129
intopieces wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow why the system has to be so complex. Why not just block access to Instagram entirely? China does, and they seem to be satisfied with the results. I don't forsee prison inmates getting access to VPNs. As other users have proposed, a locked-down version (not 'unfettered') of the web seems like a reasonable compromise.

You can't prevent access to any social network that has an API, which Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter have. The connection the social network happens on the server side, where the filter can't get it. Further, you can't prevent access to email for the same reason.

>You can't prevent access to any social network that has an API

Could you elaborate on this? China blocks Facebook/Instagram/Twitter [0] so well that there's an entire industry of VPN providers making bank on getting them access to it illicitly.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_C...

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#178

Post by eli »

dragonwriter wrote: post #75
eli wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC is an independent agency created by Congress, not part of the executive branch.

The FCC is an independent executive agency, and is part of the executive branch outside of the scope of the executive departments. It is, to be sure, created by Congress, but that's true of most of the executive branch, including the executive departments.

No. That is simply wrong. The President cannot nominate Commissioners except to fill a vacancy, nor can he order them to take any action. They do not work for him. Congress created the FCC and Congress has oversight of the FCC.

https://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do

"An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation."

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#179

Post by ams6110 »

javiramos wrote: post #17
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…

>The whole private prison thing makes me want to vomit. Makes me vomit too. We've created a systematic punishment machine rather than a reformation and education system. And systematic profiteering machine that's corrupting the objective of the Justice system.

The objective of the justice system is not reformation and education (well, maybe on paper that is the objective if you limit scope to the juvenile system). It's "paying your debt to society" for what you did wrong, i.e. punishment.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#180

Post by ams6110 »

smt88 wrote: post #60
harryh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean to be from Hawaii vs. Mississippi? Kind of a lot?

I'm not saying states shouldn't be able to determine certain things. But the federal government should be able to overrule asinine state policies after public debate (still subject to testing in court). When that testing happens, as it does now, the determining factor shouldn't be "states vs federal rights". It should be, "Does this state have a good reason to differ from the rest of the country?" In this case, where…

You seem to misunderstand the entire notion of limited federal government as defined in the constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Post reply on HN